The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 565–579 | Cite as

The battle for patent rights in plant biotechnology: evidence from opposition fillings

Article

Abstract

This paper describes and analyzes the occurrence and extent of oppositions initiated against plant biotechnology patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). The opposition mechanism is a legal procedure that allows any third party to challenge the validity of patents awarded by the EPO. Results indicate that the opposition rate is far greater in plant biotechnology than in other emerging industries. Consistent with theoretical predictions, the empirical findings suggest that opposed patents are disproportionately those that score high on features that proxy for their “value” or “quality”. In contrast to previous findings, however, the results show that large-volume applicants are more likely to be opposed. Because the boundaries of plant biotech patents are ill-defined, large patent portfolios do not promote cooperative behavior such as licensing or settlements. The analysis rejects the hypothesis that awardees are subject to “nuisance” or “frivolous” oppositions. Instead, the opposition procedure serves as an error correction mechanism.

Keywords

Patent opposition Plant biotechnology 

JEL Classification

K41 L65 O34 

References

  1. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebchuk, L. A. (1984). Litigation and settlement under imperfect information. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15(3), 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan, M. F., Pray, C. E., & Courtmanche, A. (2000). Impact of industry concentration on innovation in the US plant biotech industry. In W. H. Lesser (Ed.), Transition in Agbiotech: Economics of strategy and policy. CT: Food Marketing Policy Center, Storrs.Google Scholar
  4. Cooter, R. D., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1989). Economic analysis of legal disputes and their resolution. Journal of Economic Literature, 27(3), 1067–1097.Google Scholar
  5. Gans, J., Hsu, D., & Stern, S. (2008). The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: evidence for patent grant delays. Management Science, 54(5), 982–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graff, G. D., Rausser, G. C., & Small, A. A. (2003). Agricultural biotechnology’s complementary intellectual assets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, B. H., Thoma, G., & Torrisi, S. (2009). Financial patenting in Europe. European Management Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  10. Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–95. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harhoff, D. (2005). The battle for patent rights. In A. de Meyer & B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (Eds.), Economics and management perspectives on intellectual property rights. London: Palgrave-McMillan.Google Scholar
  12. Harhoff, D., & Wagner S. (2005). Modeling the duration of patent examination at the European patent office. CEPR discussion paper no. 5283, London.Google Scholar
  13. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harhoff, D., Regibeau, P., & Rocket, K. (2001). Genetically modified food–evaluating the economic risks. Economic Policy, 16(33), 263–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harhoff, D., & Reitzig, M. (2004). Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants–the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 443–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, oppositions and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaffe, A., Fogarty, M. S., & Trajtenberg, M. (2000). Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review, 90, 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kyle, M. K. (2007). Pharmaceutical price controls and entry strategies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1998). How to count patents and value intellectual property: uses of patent renewal and application data. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 405–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004a). Protecting intellectual property rights: Are small firms handicapped? Journal of Law and Economics, XLVII, 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004b). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114, 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lerner, J. (2008). The litigation of financial innovations. NBER working paper No. 14324. Journal of Law and Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  26. Marco, A. C., & Rausser, G. C. (2008). The role of patent rights in mergers: Consolidation in plant biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(1), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. P’ng, I. P. L. (1983). Strategic behavior in suit, settlement, and trial. The Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2), 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Priest, G. L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenberg, D., & Shavell, S. (1985). A model in which suits are brought for their nuisance value. International Review of Law and Economics, 5, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ziedonis, R. H. (2004). Don’t fence me in: Fragmented Markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Science, 50(4), 804–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations